quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Contrary to the opinion of some, marriage is strongly related to child rearing and sex.

---

quote:

---

But, if the government sees some particular type of action as generally good, why can’t it encourage that while not discouraging or making illegal other types of actions?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

quote:

---

gay people can have sex. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that the kind of sex matters — and the Lawrence v. Texas decision goes against that notion — then gay marriage should be on equal footing.

---

Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

same-sex marriage can be good in the very same ways that opposite-sex marriage can be.

---

This is a logical argument if you can make it. I won’t argue here. I have never heard this argument publicly espoused, except on these boards.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

So you're right with your summary of what Stillness said, but not with what he was trying to get at, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

I think your explanation of what you think he was trying to get at sounds nice, but I don't share your assessment.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

I know what you were trying to do and that is what I was referring to: your explanation of Stillness' reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Edit: As regards to my being obtuse (better: now being really obtuse): Alec at least had the courtesy of explaining to Safey why he is an idiot. What's your story?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's not the topic under discussion.

---

It isn't for you, nor most other people on the board, but for Stillness it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Locmaar:

We mustn't forget, as splendid as your logic sounds

---

quote:

---

If somebody, e.g. a homophobe Jehova's Witness tries to prove to you that homosexuality is bad

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

Show me anyone who does get what the hell Stillness is actually trying to say, and, more importantly why he is saying it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Synergy,

Are you even trying to understand what I’m saying? Your responses indicate that you’re not. I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted because it’s a moral issue, because I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted!

---

quote:

---

How little or how much an opposite-sex marriage differs from any other union is irrelevant. They differ. And not in an arbitrary way like race.

---

quote:

---

I know many couples don’t have children, but I think just about all marriages are or have been sexual in nature.

---

quote:

---

Whatever the case, the government recognizes them because they think it’s good overall.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Safey:

I still find that hard to buy. Food stamps are easy enough too get and because of that food wasn't a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Safey:

Substances abusers are to concerned with their next dose to be worried about whether or nor their gay.

---

quote:

---

All homeless people are poor but not all poor people are homeless. The majority of poor people are not homeless their for your statics assuming they are true is not a good cross sectional for poor people since their are major differences between the habits of poor people and homeless people.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich. Judging from high schools few poor high schools have gay people.

---

quote:

---

Even your examples out of history come from times when that particular civilization was prosperous.

---

quote:

---

Gay marrage is simply a tool used by those in ivory towers to gain political clout.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

From World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia 2003 Edition
“Most couples decide to marry because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A man and woman who marry usually hope to share a special sexual relationship and a permanent romantic attraction. But each hopes the other will always be a close friend as well. Each also expects the other to help with many problems and to share certain responsibilities. These responsibilities include earning a living, budgeting money, paying bills, preparing meals, and taking care of a home.

---

quote:

---

[i]Most couples who marry plan to have children and to raise them together. A husband and wife are required by law to protect and care for their children. Marriage thus serves as the basis of family life (see FAMILY).”[/i] [emphasis mine]

---

quote:

---

Now, I freely admit that this encyclopedia is not winning any awards for anything, but it seems you are a bit off about sex and children.

---

quote:

---

But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons.

---

quote:

---

If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one. If you say they love each other just like heterosexuals and that’s good enough, then let that be your argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Kel, the point is that same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex unions.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Kel, only opposite sex pairings can produce children naturally and only they make use of the genitalia implied by their form. This makes them naturally different.

---

quote:

---

Alo, I’ve addressed your points, but I’m curious about your statement on saying homosexuality is not unnatural scientifically. What science are you referring to?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Slartucker forever ago:
One last note. Spelling is especially important when you refer to an NPC you didn't create. If you want someone to talk about Rentar-Ihrno, for example, look up the spelling of her name, don't guess (Rintarino? Rent-Arono?). If you're not careful, she might just throw some quickfire at you.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Synergy:

There is no satisfactory dialog with anyone who bases their belief about the nature and quality of all things on the Bible or a religious text.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Genevieve:

I thought they would reappear when I got to R-I (don't know how to spell the crazy lady's name!)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by deltaflyer:

Rentar-Ihrno
Hey, I'm a grammar nazi.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyranicus:

That was not a grammatical error, or any kind of error at all. Since when are abbreviations not grammatically correct? :P

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

They do differ in very basic, natural ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

If I never have to look at another LSAT question, it will be okay with me. I hope you aren't inflicting that on yourself, Kel, though it certainly does open much more remunerative paths to you than a Ph.D in Ancient Greek or Physics.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

That sounds like an argument from ignorance.

---

quote:

---

A decision has to be prejudicial to be discriminatory. Calling all handicapped people disabled and making a determination on that basis is not prejudice. You can use the same word – “discrimination” - to describe it if you please or if you think the dictionary allows it, but it is not the same thing and it is not a matter of degree. One involves prejudice. The other does not. That’s what makes it equivocation to equate them.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

All opposite-sex marriage is male-female. That is the pairing that is perceived to be ideal.

---

quote:

---

Kel, if you think “All white people are superior” has the same quality as “All handicapped people have a disability” I don’t think there’s much more to say.

---